Support Art, Don't Censor It

October 03, 1999|By Leo E. Fuchs West Hartford

The Constitution of the United States protects the freedom of speech of all American citizens.

Even the most ardent supporters of Rudy Giuliani's threats to withdraw funding from the Brooklyn Museum because its current exhibit depicts the Virgin Mary with dung agree that, if the art were privately funded, the Constitution would guard its existence [Sept. 29, news story ``Art Museum Sues To Keep Funding, Votes to Proceed With Exhibit''].

The question, then, boils down to whether or not the government taxpayers should support art which offends some or even most people.

The government is under no obligation to support art. That it does is a symbol of our nation's desire to balance material accumulation with personal growth through creativity, imagination and expression of values. Expansion of the mind can only take place when barriers to creativity are removed.

If the climate of expression is such that promoters of art must cower at the threat of losing funding due to a mayor or president's judgment of taste, the value of art is obliterated, and America is no longer America.

There is no acceptable judge of this question and that is the point of the First Amendment. The government only has the right to intervene if expression presents a clear and present danger to a human being. The moment it is acceptable to censor one form of expression, there is no conceivable governing principle that would prevent whimsical censorship of any form of expression.

State workers must be assured that in the future these decisions will be based upon the merit of the investment vehicle, not the connections of these political insiders.

Throw these influence peddlers out on the street and prevent them from polluting the system with their greed.